Judgment B.R. Arora, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 9-8-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 1), lodged at Police Station, Sri Karanpur on 21-9-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. by Bagha Singh R/o Kharla, is that at about 11.00/11.30 a.m. he was in his cote (Nobra) and was arranging the wood. In the meanwhile he heard the sound of a gun-fire. The ladies in the house raised alarms. He thereafter went towards the Court-yard and saw accused Amarjeet Singh standing in the room of the house and was armed with a 12-bore gun. Accused Amarjeet Singh opened the second fire on his son Bikar Singh, who, on receiving the fire injuries, raised the cries. Accused Amarjeet Singh re-loaded the gun and opened third fire on Bikar Singh. Amarjeet Singh’s sister accused Amat Kaur was armed with a Takua and was instigating accused Amarjeet Singh to fire again. On seeing this, Bagha Singh and other members of the family, viz., his wife Harmendra Kaur, daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur and daughter Bhuri raised alarms. After killing Bikar Singh, accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur left the house. Accused Tarsero Singh was standing out-side the house and enquired from accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur whether the work had been done or not, whereupon both the accused said that Bikar Singh had been done to death. It was only on the instigation of accused Kishan Singh the father of the other three accused - that the murder of Bikar Singh was committed and he had sent the accused along with his licened gun. Bagha Singh alias Bag Singh, Harmendra Kaur, Jasbir Kaur and Miss Bhuri thereafter entered in the room and found Bikar Singh dead. It was only on the instigation of accused Kishan Singh the father of the other three accused - that the murder of Bikar Singh was committed and he had sent the accused along with his licened gun. Bagha Singh alias Bag Singh, Harmendra Kaur, Jasbir Kaur and Miss Bhuri thereafter entered in the room and found Bikar Singh dead. The accused had committed the murder of Bikar Singh who was a student of B.A., on the allegation that he used to tease accused Atam Kaur. On this basis of the report, a case under Sections 302, 302/34 and 120B, I.P.C, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against accused Amarjeet Singh, Tarsem Singh, Atam Kaur and Kishan Singh. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Amarjeet Singh and Kumari Atam Kaur but submitted the Final Report against accused Tarsem Singh and Kishan Singh. The Final Report, submitted by the police in favour of Tarsem Singh and Kishan Singh was accepted by the Court and the remaining accused, viz., Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur were tried by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The case of the accused, in defence, was that accused Amarjeet Singh was coming from his field and at that time he was armed with a gun. In the way he heard the cries of his sister Atam Kaur from the house of Bikar Singh; he went near the outer-door of the house of Bikar Singh and saw Bikar Singh molesting his sister Atam Kaur. He asked Bikar Singh to leave his sister and in order to save her from being further molested, he opened the fire and both the triggers worked together. Thereafter he came to his house along with his sister. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Amarjeet Singh, as stated but acquitted accused Atam Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt. It is against this Judgment dated 9-8-1991, convicting and sentencing the appellant that he has preferred this appeal. 3. Thereafter he came to his house along with his sister. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Amarjeet Singh, as stated but acquitted accused Atam Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt. It is against this Judgment dated 9-8-1991, convicting and sentencing the appellant that he has preferred this appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable witnesses and they had not seen the occurrence; they have not been believed by the learned trial Court so far as the other three accused are concerned and, therefore, their evidence, also does not inspire confidence so far as the present accused-appellant is concerned and the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence produced by the prosecution. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that the act was done by the appellant under a grave and sudden provocation when the molesty of his sister Atam Kaur was being out-raged by deceased Bikar Singh and it was only on account of grave and sudden provocation and in order to save his sister from the clutches of the deceased that he opened the fire from his D.B.B.L. gun which he was carrying at that time and both the triggers worked together and as such the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the accused-appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Thefalsus in uno, falsus omnibus (false in one thing, false in all) is not a principle of universal application and the accused-appellant cannot be acquitted merely on the ground that part of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been believed with respect to the other accused. The evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the chaff has to be separated from the grain and if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence, so far as the present, accused-appellant is concerned, then that can be relied upon and the conviction of the appellant can be based on that evidence. The evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the chaff has to be separated from the grain and if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence, so far as the present, accused-appellant is concerned, then that can be relied upon and the conviction of the appellant can be based on that evidence. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the evidence of three eye witnesses, viz., P.W. 1 Bag Singh alias Bagha Singh, P.W. 2 Mst. Harmender Kaur and P.W. 6 Jasbir Kaur. P.W. 1 Bag Singh has stated that on 21-9-1987, at about 11-30 a.m., he was in his cote (Nobra) and was arranging the wood. He heard the sound of gun fire and ran towards, that side. He saw accused Amarjeet Singh opening second fire on his son Bikar Singh in the room. Bikar Singh cried. In the meanwhile accused Amarjeet Singh re-loaded the gun and opened the third fire on Bikar Singh. He asked accused Amarjeet Singh why he was doing so. At that rime his wife P.W. 2 Harmender Kaur, daughter-in-law P.W. 6 Jasbir Kaur and daughter Bhuri were, also, present there. Accused Amarjeet Singh was accompanied by his sister accused Atam Kaur, who was armed with a Takua and who asked accused Amarjeet Singh to have one more fire so that Bikar Singh may not be saved (SAALA BACH NA JAVE, EK FIRE AUR KAR). After that accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur went towards the main gate, where Tarsem Singh was standing, who took the gun from Amarjeet Singh and enquired whether the work had been done, whereupon Amarjeet Singh informed him that Bikar Singh has been done to death. He, his wife Harmender Kaur, daughter-in-law Jasbir Kaur and daughter Bhuri thereafter went inside the room and found Bikar Singh dead.. According to him, the murder of Bikar Singh has been committed by the accused on account of previous enmity between the two families and earlier, also, accused Kishan Singh - the father of accused Amarjeet Singh and Atam Kaur - had opened fire on him. According to this witness, Kishan Singh had sent these accused giving his licensed gun after hetching the conspiracy to murder Bikar Singh. Similar is the statement of PW 2 Mst. Haramender Kaur and P.W. 6 Jasbir Kaur. They have corroborated the evidence of PW 1 Bag Singh on all the aspects and their statements are almost the same. According to this witness, Kishan Singh had sent these accused giving his licensed gun after hetching the conspiracy to murder Bikar Singh. Similar is the statement of PW 2 Mst. Haramender Kaur and P.W. 6 Jasbir Kaur. They have corroborated the evidence of PW 1 Bag Singh on all the aspects and their statements are almost the same. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted with these three eye witnesses but nothing could be elicited which could have shaken their testimony. Their presence at the scene of the occurrence, particularly when the incident took place in. their own house, was most natural. The murder of Bikar Singh was committed in a room of their house. The ladies are expected to be present in the house at that time. The presence of P.W. 1 Bag Singh in the cote (Nohra), situated adjacent to the house, was, also, most natural. The incident took place at about 1.30 a.m. and the report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Sri Karanpur, within two hours of the incident. Thus, the evidence of these three eye witness inspire confidence. 6. The evidence of these three eye-witnesses further find corroboration from the medical evidence. PW 5 Dr. Iqbal Singh, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Bikar Singh, found fire-arm injuries on his dead body. He found three entry and one exit wounds on the corpse of Bikar Singh. The ocular testimony of these three eye-witnesses further finds corroboration from the recoveries made in this case. The gun was recovered on the information and at’ the instance of the accused-appellant and the empties were recovered from the place of the incident. The report of the Ballistic Expert reveals that the empties recovered from the place of the incident were fired from the gun recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The prosecution has been able to prove that the articles, which were sent for examination, remained in the same sealed, condition throughout since their seizing and sealing till they reached the Laboratory/Ballistic Expert. The prosecution has been able to prove that the articles, which were sent for examination, remained in the same sealed, condition throughout since their seizing and sealing till they reached the Laboratory/Ballistic Expert. The prosecution has proved the link evidence regarding sealing by producing PW 3 Inderjeet Singh, investigating officer, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer), PW 4 Neki Ram, H.C., the Incharge of the Mallthana of Police Station, Sri Karanpur, in whose possession the articles remained in the same sealed condition; and PW.7 Raghubir Singh, Constable, who took the articles for F.S.L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and, also, from the evidence of PW 9 Harish Chandra, A.S.I. Police. The evidence of these three eye-witnesses, therefore, inspire confidence and the same cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they have also, stated against the other three accused who have either been acquitted or the Final Report was submitted by the police and accepted by the Court. No overt-act has been assigned to the other three accused who have been acquitted or not challaned. The only evidence against those accused was that accused Kishan Singh hetched a conspiracy and sent the accused-appellant and Atam Kaur along with his licensed gun and the evidence against Tarsem Singh was that he was standing outside the house of the complainant party and the evidence against accused Atam Kaur was that she was with accused-appellant Amarjeet Singh and instigated him to open one more fire. Therefore, those accused were either not challaned or acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. As no active participation to the aforesaid three accused has been assigned by the eye-witnesses, the evidence of these witnesses, so far as the present appellant is concerned, cannot be disbelieved. They are truthful witnesses and have rightly been believed by the learned trial Court. 7. The next question, which requires consideration, is: whether the incident took place as stated by the prosecution witnesses or it took place as stated by the accused? There were six injuries found on the person of accused Atam Kaur. She was medically examined by PW 5 Iqbal Singh on 22-9-87. She was aged about seventeen years at the relevant time. The next question, which requires consideration, is: whether the incident took place as stated by the prosecution witnesses or it took place as stated by the accused? There were six injuries found on the person of accused Atam Kaur. She was medically examined by PW 5 Iqbal Singh on 22-9-87. She was aged about seventeen years at the relevant time. The injuries found on the person of accused Atam Kaur and the way in which the incident took place, clearly go to show that deceased Bikar Singh must have tried’ to molest her while she might be passing through the lane and she must have gone to her house and reported the matter to her brothers and on hearing her complaint, appellant Amarjeet Singh might have come to the house of the complainant party with a gun. The injuries found on the person of accused Atam Kaur could not be self -inflicted merely to save her brother (accused Amarjeet Singh). If she would not have been molested by Bikar Singh then she would not have accompanied her brother at the place of the Occurrence as she was not having any enmity with the accused party and normally the girls of this age Will not participate in the family ‘feuds if there is any. But whether this provocation was sufficient to give a cause to accused-appellant Amarjeet Singh to fire thrice and kill Bikar Sing))? Though it was a sufficient reason to give a thrashing to Bikar Singh by (he appellant, but he opened two fires, re-loaded the gun and again made the third fire. It is true that if the molesty of a girl is being out-raged or any person tries to majest, one’s sister then that may give rise to a brother to thrash the person who had done so, but it does not give any sufficient cause to kill that person. PW 1 Bag Singh, though in the F.I.R. and in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, came with the case that his son Bikar Singh has been murdered on the allegation that he had teased Atam Kaur but denied this fact in his statement recorded by the trial Court and when confronted with his earlier statements, he stated that he never stated so to the police. But, however, PW 2 Mst. But, however, PW 2 Mst. Harmender Kaur and PW 6 Jasbir Kaur have admitted that the murder of Bikar Singh was committed by the accused-appellant on the allegation that Bikar Singh had teased Atam Kaur. The fires, opened by the accused-appellant, therefore, cannot be said to have been made on account of grave and sudden provocation because by the time he reached the house of the complainant party, the anger and heat of passion must have been cooled-down and, therefore, it cannot be said that all the three fires were open by the appellant in the heat of provocation. Therefore, the case of the accused-appellant does not fall under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C, and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.